frist eintragen

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it enumerates the exact conditions under which a confirmation will be accepted (calculation names the deadline end, trigger, legal basis and source present, no open [PRÜFEN]/[QUELLE]/[BELEG] markers), and states the confirmation receives a review date and reviewer. This is genuinely rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the most important fact ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE') and then packs the gating rules into a compact semicolon-joined sentence. Dense but every clause carries an actionable constraint; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical gating logic and the no-op behavior when bestaetigt is absent. It stops short of documenting remaining parameters, but the safety-critical context an agent needs is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 38% across 13 params, so the description must compensate. It ties meaning to several params — berechnung ('Rechnung das Fristende'), ausloeser, rechtsgrundlage, quelle, and the bestaetigt gating — but many others (art, fall, datum, titel, verfahren, pruefstatus, geprueft_von, ausloeser_ereignis) are left to the schema. Partial compensation only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Frist oder Termin in einem Fall eintragen', with the all-caps 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE' reinforcing that this is a write. An agent can tell it writes a deadline/appointment to a case file. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling 'frist_setzen', leaving some ambiguity about which write tool to choose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides one strong precondition — 'Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer' — which tells the agent this call must be user-confirmed. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like frist_setzen or ereignis_eintragen, so usage is only partially implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.